CC Minutes 3-26-07City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
15.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
16.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit)) and comply with their conditions of approval.
17.Provide drainage area maps and calculations to ensure that they are the same as what was
previously accepted.
18.Provide rational method calculations for the storm sewer.
19.Ground (i.e. non-paved) surface grades shall not be less than 2%. Paved grades shall not be
less than 1%. Grades along curb line must not be less than .5%.
20.Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown on the plan.
21.An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading.
22.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
23.Areas disturbed areas in City right of way must be sodded.
24.Show heavy duty and light duty pavement sections on the plans.
nd
25.Access for tractor trailers shall be limited to 82 Street.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Peterson: Now you can build it.
Mayor Furlong: And I think Ms. Aanenson, with regard to the direction from the Planning
Commission on reviewing that, I think the council, I didn't hear any objection to that and I think
that makes a lot of sense.
CHANHASSEN HIGH SCHOOL; NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF
THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD, AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK;
APPLICANT, ANDERSON-JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC., AND INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT 112:
A. REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT
(A2) AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)_TO OFFICE
INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (OI);
7
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
B. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT;
C. CONSIDER SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES FOR A HIGH
SCHOOL CAMPUS INCLUDING AN APPROXIMATELY 406,000 SQ. FT., 3
STORY BUILDING, ATHLETIC FIELDS, CONCESSION BUILDING,
STADIUM, STORAGE/MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND PARKING LOTS;
D. REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING
AND FILLING OF WETLANDS ON SITE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Steve Pumper 11 Peavey Road, Chaska
th
Mark Bosca 8585 West 78 Street, Bloomington
Paul Schlueter 11 Peavey Road, Chaska
Jay Pomeroy 7575 Golden Valley Road, Suite 200, Minneapolis
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. Again the review of the high
school. You have seen this when we did the environmental assessment document, but this is the
continuation of the final site plan approval. There are several other actions being requested
tonight. This item did appear before the Planning Commission with the public hearing on March
th
6. There are several issues that were addressed at the Planning Commission. Some of those
were by the Park and Rec Commission regarding additional parking and trip consideration. The
school has addressed those by putting them in as a bid alternative so they will get the cost on
those. They did add additional sidewalk that was requested and I'll go through these and show
you on the site plan in a moment. And then there was also some questions addressed regarding
the retaining wall and some landscaping, which I'll go into a little more detail but they did
recommend approval of the site plan. The one issue that the Planning Commission altered from
too was up lighting. The staff had recommended against the up lighting but the Planning
Commission felt that they would grant a variance to allow for up lighting and supporting
findings of fact were submitted for that. So you have that in your staff report. So the action
before you tonight then is for one, a rezoning. A site plan approval with variances. Conditional
use with variances, and then a wetland alteration permit. The subject site is located on Lyman
Boulevard bordered on the north. The railroad tracks. Stone Creek and an industrial park in
Chaska and two subdivisions to the east. One large lot and then Bluff Creek runs along the
eastern trace of the property. The site itself is 95 acres, although there's a significant portion of it
encumbered in the creek itself. The high school's intended to house 2,000 students, grades 9
through 12 and it will be about approximately 406,000 square feet, which is just slightly smaller
than the Chaska site. Again before this item went to the Planning Commission, a neighborhood
meeting was held and hosted by the high school. Staff was in attendance for that to address
questions for the neighborhood. Listed in your staff report again are some of those questions that
were addressed, and I believe they've been answered pretty much to the neighbors satisfaction.
There is this site itself is challenging in topography and I'll go through some of those challenges
8
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
as we talk about the site plan in a minute but there's 90 feet in change. On the entire 95 acres, so
that in itself presents some challenges. This is north, but in order to this entire site on the map, I
think that works best. So the overview of the site itself, they talked about the square footage and
the change in grade. The 25 acres of wetland. The railroad tracks on the northern end. Lyman
Boulevard, a county collector road along the entire sight line. The Chaska utility sub-station
located there. And the gas pipeline that runs through the middle of the site, all directed, the
formation of how the school itself laid out, which was a challenge for the school district itself in
order to lay it out. So with that layout the OI district does also require or permit 2 stories.
Because this is 12 feet, more than 12 feet at certain points because of the gymnasium, that is the
one variance that is being requested for the site itself. The staff liked the walkout look. Putting
the gymnasium on the southern end of the site and did support and did encourage the school to
lay it out in that format and we are recommending approval of that variance on that site itself.
Again the change in grade with the Bluff Creek and the layout again was, provided some of those
opportunities for that walkout which we think, and the bus drive, bus circulation made a good
layout. It also abuts the primary zone district, Bluff Creek Overlay District. As you recall this
project went to the environmental assessment when we did the grading itself but on page 5 there
was 3 major issues that the EAW identified would be traffic, and that would be access off of
Lyman Boulevard. The wetland impacts, which we'll talk a little bit more, and the storm water
runoff. That issue was also addressed. Again there's two separate projects. MnDot's doing a
wetland replacement project on the creek itself as part of the 212 overlay district, so that's their
project. One of the residents did raise a question regarding erosion control. Staff did talk to
MnDot and Pollution Control Agency regarding mitigations. Some of the people thought there
should be additional woodchips and the like and we were concerned with a super rain event that
we'd actually end up with more chips in the creek itself, so we're monitoring that and managing
the storm water runoff, just to make sure that that… The council did approve a dual guiding on
this property and said if the school district chose not to go forward, so the land use and rezoning
is consistent with the comprehensive plan. That's one of your actions tonight. So it is consistent
with that. So the school itself, we talked about the 3 story building located in this area. The
main drive. This is the Chaska sub-station. This is one of the variances right through here, in
order to, the Bluff Creek Overlay District in order to get onto the site to make the T intersection
at Audubon. There's a minor impact to the wetland in the overlay district in order to make that
access for the bus circulation. In looking at the layout itself with that traffic signal on the bluff
location, we did study early on several different approaches to get into the site itself for the bus
and that seemed to be the best place for that to occur. So that was a variance request right there.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time going through the architectural details. We do have the color
samples here for the building itself. This building doesn't look similar to the one in Chaska.
Different looking building, reflecting the tones of the, kind of more the earth tones, reflecting to
the area. Does meet the standards, except for the variance requirement. There was some
questions regarding on the landscaping itself. This was also brought up with the planning
commission regarding, there are native grasses that are being proposed adjacent to the Bluff
Creek is what we're proposing as part of the overlay district enhancement, which we had
recommended to the school district. There's also a 3 inch minimum on the trees. Again those
will be put in over time. They're not going to all go in at once, and I think that's something that
the school, the students will be working on too over time. There was some other questions
regarding species. They're doing native species which we requested again following the overlay
district, the Bluff Creek plan that we wanted to have, so just some recommendations on species
9
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
types that are native. And just some other species recommendations regarding some diseased
trees and significant amount of the same type of tree itself. The parking lot, we talked about this
being the main entrance with the signal. The other recommendation for a signal is, you have
about a million square feet of the industrial park here, and this will also be a signalized
intersection. There is a railroad tracks which is part of the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard, will
include the crossing arms, which will be incorporated into the project itself, and I know the
school district would like to see another signal at this location but that hasn't been decided at this
time. It was not, it was their request. It was not part of the recommendation of the EAW. So
lighting plan, I'm on page 11 of the staff report. There are light standards in all the parking lots.
They're segmenting the parking's be again bus transportation, student drop off and then student
parking. There's extra parking for special events, football games, school activities, concerts and
the like. But one of the requests was to do some up lighting. The staff had recommended that,
because we don't allow up lighting, that would be shining into the sky, showing off the
architecture but the Planning Commission felt that due to the importance of the building that they
felt as a community place that it might be important thing to do. One of the conditions then was
to allow that only during special activities and there'd be a limit to that. Most of those activities
are done by 11:00 p.m. so that was their condition that they put on there. Again on page 13 there
was recommendations regarding those traffic improvements, with Lyman Boulevard being
upgraded. We talked about the traffic signals, besides the one at Audubon, being a 4 legged
intersection and Lyman Boulevard. Also Lyman Boulevard and there needs to be right turns,
acceleration, deceleration lanes that need to be put in place too prior to the opening in 2009.
Now I'll take a minute and talk about retaining walls. Any other questions on the site itself. I
didn't go through the wetland impact. There is a wetland here. There's a wetland here. There's
some impact up in this area here. There's a little bit of an anomaly through here. We have
wetlands here, so they're meeting all the requirements of the wetland replacement on site.
Managing all the storm water on site.
Mayor Furlong: Real quick then on, what we're seeing there in terms of the blue, those will be
the retention ponds?
Kate Aanenson: Some of them are retention ponds.
Mayor Furlong: And some are just natural wetlands?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: That will be retained?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then so the mitigation is where, up in the northeast portion?
Kate Aanenson: The mitigation, actually here. Mitigation here and here.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
10
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Kate Aanenson: Let me just go back to, I did make a map. Hopefully you can see this. The
lighting itself. This is the school, so we're on the back side of the school. This is just, zoom in
on that. So this is the gymnasium. This is Bluff Creek down in this area here where my pencil
is, so this would be the up lighting here where the gymnasium is. This is coming in at that
entrance to go to a basketball game. This is on the, facing the west which would be Lyman
Boulevard over here. Shining on the building, and that was some of the reasons that the
Planning Commission felt that maybe there wasn't as much view from the neighbors across the
way, although they would be able to see this part of it here. So they're in the thought process of
the lighting itself, and of course they have lighting on the flags, like I said too. The retaining
walls. There are two different sizes of walls that are being put in place. One using big block,
and those are shown in blue. When I say big block, they're 2 feet by 4 feet, and that's in areas, in
this area of walls, almost 30 feet high. This wall has been eliminated. It's actually on this site,
and then the walls shown in pink are smaller. Some of them are terraced. This one has been
modified to be terraced, and those are traditional standard block walls, which is much smaller in
scale. They did try to terrace where they could. Again based on the constraints of the site
regarding the gas line, the pinching of the creek. This is the one they were able to modify to
create two walls. In this area it will be problematic because we're already pinched by the, if you
go back to… So this is that, the tallest retaining wall right through here. That would be terraced
because you're into, it's off of, if you've been up to the electrical sub-station, it drops off
dramatically towards the creek, so what you'd do is just impacting the creek greater. There
wouldn't be any activity, as much visibility right there. This wall that's in this area has been
terraced, so it'd be two stepped, so in that area where it's terraced there'll be additional
landscaping. That was one of the requirements of the landscaping in those areas that we do
create…provide on the top of the walls too, to terrace those. But in these areas where you have
walls and try to terrace them, you're eliminating parking or you're impacting… This wall is
terraced. Some of these are terraced, such as in here, but all of the walls were, are proposed to
be. Talked about storm water, I believe just kind of briefly going through that. Again there is a
sheet giving you the length and the height of all the walls on page 19 of the staff report so I can
answer any questions on that.
Councilman Peterson: Excuse me.
Kate Aanenson: Go ahead.
Councilman Peterson: Going back to that picture in the center again. If you look at the entrance
where you said if we did terrace that it would go into, you endanger the creek at a higher rate.
Again my logic says if we terrace it and let the water go down between the terrace, and do
plantings there, that that would act as a rain garden. It would help the creek. Again that's just a
lay person saying it doesn't make sense that, I would think it would help the creek if you terrace
it but.
Kate Aanenson: There's a utility right here. Paul, I'm not sure what.
Paul Oehme: It's a sewer.
11
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Kate Aanenson: It's a sewer right through here so, that's part of that steeper area right through
here too so, typically what they like to do if you terrace, if you terrace a 10 foot wall, you want a
10 foot separation. That's the MnDot standard so in that area, you could, you don't have to break
it in half. You could go, which I believe the wall on the northern portion is terraced at say 5 and
10. There's different ways to break that. Doing the shorter portion on the top and the taller
portion on the bottom. I can ask the engineers if their response to looking, investigating some of
that. Do you want to, do you want me to go through the rest of it and then we can talk about it?
Councilman Peterson: One more question. On the wall that we did terrace. So now that it's
terraced, over to the left, yeah. What it's going to look like? What are the numbers on it? Do
you know?
Mayor Furlong: Which number wall is that? Is that 19?
Kate Aanenson: It's 24 feet. I believe it was terraced, was it like 4 feet?
Jay Pomeroy: Yeah, it's like 24 feet, give or take, and then a 3 foot drop. Or let's go from the
top. 3 foot drop and then 24 feet down.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: So it was 27 and you've got a 3 and a 24?
Jay Pomeroy: It varies a little bit.
Kate Aanenson: And all the fences or retaining walls will have fences on the top. Do you want
me to have them answer the question on possibly terracing the other one?
Councilman Peterson: We can come back. Why don't you go ahead and finish.
Kate Aanenson: Okay. So again just to summarize, the rezoning is consistent with the
comprehensive plan. To office institutional. The site plan with the variance for the height.
Again there was discussion that we had recommended against the up lighting. The Planning
Commission did support it. I have given you another motion to go a different way if that's your
so chosen. The impact to the Bluff Creek Overlay District for the entrance to the driveway
because we wanted that to be a T intersection at Audubon and Lyman, so that forced that impact
with the grading coming off of the electrical sub-station. We felt that was the most appropriate
place. Again the environmental assessment document also backed that up. And then the wetland
alteration permit for the filling of the wetlands which are being replaced on site in compliance
with the wetland conservation act. So with that, we're recommending approval of the motions
before you. Any questions I'd be happy to answer.
Mayor Furlong: Just to clarify in the lighting Kate. You said you gave us something. Is that this
right here that was distributed?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
12
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And this basically would, was what?
Kate Aanenson: That's the staff's original recommendation. That there would be no up lighting.
If you went within the staff report, that would reflect what the Planning Commission did.
Mayor Furlong: This is what went originally to the Planning Commission from staff.
Kate Aanenson: Yep, from the staff.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And there's findings with both, whichever way you support.
Councilwoman Ernst: Kate can you explain to me the reasons why we wouldn't want the up
lighting.
Kate Aanenson: Well the City a number of years ago passed an ordinance restricting up lighting.
It did cut off for sky light penetration, so especially when you're adjacent to neighborhoods.
They don't have that glow. For example on ballfields and those sort of things. Street lights.
Parking lot lights. We've lowered that height so we don't have a lot of light. We have a
requirement that you have to cut off, but there's still light that goes up into the sky and so we
changed our ordinance to have cut off if it does go up. There's only one variance that I'm aware
of that we've given recently and that was to the cinema. That's because the findings that the
council made at that time for the variance was that it's in the core of downtown. Downtown
central business district and had supported that there'd be a small amount of up lighting on the
cinema itself, and that's the only one I'm aware of that we've given that type of up lighting. So,
there's been other requests but that's the only one that we've supported, so that we were just
consistent with that. And I think the Planning Commission just took approach that this was kind
of a public building that maybe at a football game or some special activity going on at the
school, that they wanted to you know. Obviously safety's very important and there's enough
parking lot lighting to accommodate that, but just kind of draw attention if there's something
special going on at the school. And as long as they cut it off at a certain time so it doesn't
become a nuisance to the neighbors. That's when we get the complaints on the spillover lighting.
Some of the neighbors complain when they look out their windows, that there's bright lights
coming across, even though there's a cut off at the property line.
Councilwoman Ernst: Thank you.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Speaking of bright lights Kate, the monument sign that they'll have at
the high school. Do we have any regulations about what that would be like? As far as how it's
lit and what type of sign it is?
Councilman Peterson: No LED?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I didn't want to specifically spit that out but I was going to go there.
13
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Would it have to meet our city ordinance?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. We have a city ordinance. We have allowed those as conditional uses.
For example we do have one at Chapel Hill has one that's a conditional use and there's
regulations on those size and I know that Minnetonka just put one up too. So they can program
activities instead of doing the changeable copies. But again those would be, we can regulate
those under conditional use where you attach conditions to mitigate that such as they're shut off
at night. Do those sort of things after a certain time.
Mayor Furlong: And that is not before us this evening?
Kate Aanenson: No. They have not submitted that or given that indication to us tonight what
they're doing.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: The Legion and Cinema are two other examples where we allowed.
Kate Aanenson: Yep. And I think the library which just has open and close, our library up here
is just the hours and that's yeah, LED.
Todd Gerhardt: It's not LED though.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff. Go ahead.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, just for a comfort level. You know I mean the railroad tracks
kind of bother me a little bit for safety. So can we address that a little bit?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. As a matter of fact I did, one of the other issues that was brought up by
the neighborhood, which we didn't spend a lot of time on. This is actually the Eden Prairie High
School. And the railroad tracks for the Eden Prairie High School are really pretty much in the
same proximity to the entrance. They also have a crossing arm. We went over there to look at,
there's posting of no parking in the neighborhood. We didn't want to post that right away. I
know that was a concern of the neighbors but we committed to monitor that. The neighbors were
concerned that people would park and then walk over to the school instead of paying a parking
fee so we'd monitor that. Eden Prairie has got that posted for immediate neighbors that you can't
park during the school hours, before and then just after. We didn't observe parked cars there, so
that seems to be working. And if you look at the entrances, it's pretty similar. Railroad tracks.
Pretty similar in proximity to one of the main entrances to the school, so this is where most of the
student parking is coming in. There's also, if you come this way, what will they do…so in
looking at that with the crossing arm, we feel that that's a similar situation.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And now this is a laymen question. These trains, are they usually
running on a schedule so we kind of know what time a train comes?
14
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Kate Aanenson: You can go to the Twin Cities and Western's web site and right now they're
running 2 or 3 and they are looking to moving that up to maybe 4 to 6 trains a day. Are they
always regular? No.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff at this time?
Kate Aanenson: I just want to point out one thing while we're talking about railroad tracks. I'm
not sure if you're aware but we do have an underpass for the Stone Creek neighborhood that goes
up, a railroad trestle that goes under.
Mayor Furlong: Why don't you move the Eden Prairie picture off.
Kate Aanenson: Oh I'm sorry. Underneath the railroad tracks. Way up here. That goes under,
so there is a way to go underneath the tracks. For those neighbors that want to walk.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And ride their bikes, okay.
Kate Aanenson: And fencing and the like…similar to what Eden Prairie has too.
Todd Gerhardt: Isn't it quite steep there too Kate?
Kate Aanenson: It is.
Todd Gerhardt: And it's probably 20 plus feet above the, you know the base of the underpass.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So all those trails do connect but there is a controlled way to get under the
tracks, so it's easily accessible and visible.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I know that in Minnetonka, in the high school, when you drive
through they're full of speed bumps. There's not going to be, will there be those type of things?
No?
Councilman Litsey: Not at first anyway.
Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson on the crossing arm for the railroad crossing. Is that, that doesn't
exist there now, correct?
Kate Aanenson: No, there's no crossing arms but it's going to be a requirement.
Paul Oehme: There is crossing arms.
Kate Aanenson: There is? Oh, okay.
15
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Paul Oehme: Very old.
Kate Aanenson: They're old. When we widen the road, that will be replaced so, yeah. To make
those improvements but, yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Councilman Litsey: Kate I had a question on the, one of the questions that came up at that
th
neighborhood meeting on January 18 had to do with the streets and the networking that will
take place to handle the traffic for this project. What, I mean there's some recommendations in
here but is that, is it like Lyman, is that sufficient to handle without any significant traffic
volume that's going to come through there?
Kate Aanenson: Well that's why we did the environmental assessment document and that's just a
summary of the modeling for the traffic itself and directional traffic was done. And that, page
14. It gives you the improvements, the turning movements that need to be made.
Councilman Litsey: Right.
Kate Aanenson: Now there's a full blown traffic study that was done as a part of that
environmental assessment. I didn't attach that but that gives you what directions the students
would be coming from.
Councilman Litsey: And what directions would they predominantly be going?
Kate Aanenson: Well, if I can recall. There was actually about 25% coming down Audubon and
maybe you can help me Paul. 25 on Lyman. Yeah, west Lyman. I was surprised that there was
that much coming south. So yes, Lyman with improvement should be able to handle, that's what
the traffic study said with these improvements.
Councilman Litsey: But these improvements are pretty superficial overall. I mean we're not
talking about major road reconstruction here, right?
Paul Oehme: You want to.
Todd Gerhardt: Well the County is out right now preparing a Request for Proposal to look at the
segment basically from what would be Galpin all the way over to the second segment of
Audubon where a lift station is. It would taper down there. And preparing a Request for
Proposal, they would probably looking at upgrading that roadway to either a super 2 or 4 lane
roadway section as Phase I. And then ultimately from 41 to match up with the road segment at
Powers and Lyman. So my gut feeling is that it would probably be done in phases, and with this
being the first phase from Galpin over to second phase of Audubon as it goes north into
Chanhassen.
16
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Kate Aanenson: Right. What's in the staff report is the turning lanes that need to be to
accommodate the school.
Councilman Litsey: Right.
Kate Aanenson: Obviously it's, it would be prudent to do both together so that the school doesn't
have to put up a temporary signal and then do a new signal in 3 years down the road so we'd like
to see the two go together, but these are the improvements that need to be made for the school to
have the safety.
Councilman Litsey: It just seems to me that we know Lyman's going to have to be upgraded. I
mean it can't really handle what's there now. We're adding this to it. As part of this project,
doesn't it make sense to take a look at the whole road situation and look at some partners and
perhaps sharing in the cost for that upgrade? And I don't know if that could be done as part of
this document or not but, and I know there's a past agreement where the City, and I know this is I
guess apparently in disagreement. Maybe on the hook for the vast majority of the cost of
improvements to that road. Why wait down the road this project's going in? Why not look at
that as part of this project and what we can do to accelerate perhaps the improvements to that
road and look at the school district and the county perhaps as partners in helping pay that cost or
down the road the city's probably going to be potentially footing the bill for a $10 million plus
project. Perhaps 80% of it.
Todd Gerhardt: Well I don't, you know we've been having discussions with the school district,
the City of Chaska and Carver County and I think we're going in the right direction. Everybody
sees the importance of seeing Lyman upgrade and matching in with the segment of Lyman that is
east of Powers Boulevard over to 101 that was filled in with the 212 improvements and you're
absolutely right. The school district recognizes that the City of Chanhassen, Chaska, Carver
County, we only want to put these improvements in once and if we can get together and move
ahead, that would be great and that's what we're trying to do here. Carver County is putting
together Requests for Proposal for engineering services to start laying out the design and cost
estimates. Basically doing a feasibility study for Lyman Boulevard. Once we have those
numbers, then we can sit down and really start talking about the percentages. Conceptually I
think we have some percentages that I'd like to bring back to the council in the future, once we
have those estimates for the road, but from the school standpoint, they know they need to be
open in 2009 and so they have to kind of dual track this. If for some reason we can't get the road
done or come to an agreement on it, they're going to need to put up temporary signals and turn
lanes to get into their site so, we're kind of dual tracking this but staff is in agreement with you
Bryan, and probably the rest of the council that we should upgrade the road and do all these
improvements at once. Don't do them twice.
Councilman Litsey: Right.
Todd Gerhardt: And that's how we're trying to track it.
Councilman Litsey: …the school to partner in this if this goes through this way rather than
having something up front, and I don't know quite how you would do that you know legally but
17
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
some kind of a memorandum of understanding or some kind of a commitment, more than just
saying you know philosophically we agree. But I mean I understand moving on the project, and
I very much support the school and I really have no other problems in what's been presented here
other than I'm very concerned about the traffic impact and how that's going to play out down the
road and I, if there was say that we could get a better commitment from the school in terms of
helping us.
Kate Aanenson: Well they are committed because they have to make these improvements. The
commitment is, it's better to do it once and do it right, so there's a commitment there. I mean the
horse is out of the barn because the school's going to open and these improvements have to be
made so it's better to have that kind of being the catalyst to make everybody get to the table.
Councilman Litsey: I mean not to be disagreeable but it's going to be a lot cheaper just to do the
improvements that are in here than a $10 million road project.
Todd Gerhardt: Well I think the school district is committed to, they have agreed verbally to us
that they would contribute to the overall road improvements. It's a huge benefit to them to have
that road completely upgraded, and so you know, you can call it an incentive but I think
everybody's in agreement that they want to see the road done all in one and not piece meal it and
put in temporary signals and have to tear them out a couple years later. So they are willing to
contribute towards the cost of upgrading that road to a 4 lane. And would contribute
significantly to that based on our past meetings that we've had with Steve and Superintendent
Jennings.
Councilman Litsey: Is there any way to add that in there, into this that…
Kate Aanenson: Well I would just say this. If you look at what they're obligated to do, all the
turn movements, all the improvements, that's a lot of the project. Some of it's outside of their
control and that's where the nexus gets a little bit mushy because you've got Chaska across the
street that's also providing a million square feet of industrial so, really what this does is says, you
know this is moving forward and we need to be working together to get these problems.
Todd Gerhardt: But Bryan brings up a good statement here and maybe we can put something in
about dual tracking. That an either/or scenario and that you know, that the school negotiate in
good faith if you decide to go with 4 lane road system and then if for some reason the school or
the County and the City do not come to terms of a permanent solution for the road, then they
would put in the temporary turn lanes and signals.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we have some…in here, a condition to that.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah, I think that would help a lot.
Kate Aanenson: If you look on page 24. Here's what we have to date, and I can see where you
want to modify that. Page 24. Under the Site Plan. Condition number 5. The following
mitigation measures shall be implemented by the opening day of school. The traffic signals.
Again that's where I'm saying for them to do it twice, you know all those things have to be
18
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
implemented. So if you wanted to add under there, somewhere in there the language regarding
working in good faith or.
Councilman Litsey: I would just like to see something good, and the budgets get tight and later
on you know, every dollar matters and I would just like to see a little stronger language in there
without compromising or jeopardizing moving forward with the project. That there's an
expectation that we'll do…
Mayor Furlong: I know that there have been meetings, and I guess Steve Pumper is here,
Director of Finance from the District and maybe we can hold off on suggesting language until we
have a chance to hear from him too.
Councilman Litsey: I'd be fine with that.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this point? Give you an opportunity later, okay.
How about the applicant? Mr. Pumper.
Steve Pumper: Good evening. Thank you Mayor, Council members. Steve Pumper, Director of
Finance and Operations with School District 112 and it's really exciting to be here again. We're
almost there. Similar to the applicant for Heartland, we're ready to begin construction as well so,
we hope things go well tonight. One thing before I forget, we'd certainly like to let council
members know that the relationship between the school district, staff and it's partners and your
staff members working here for the City of Chanhassen has been excellent. It's a great project
that we're bringing forward. There's been great cooperation on both parts. We've listened to
each other. We've listened to the residents in the area and we thanked them for their suggestions
and I think the project has improved because of that. As a matter, I'll get straight up to the road
issue.
Councilman Litsey: Sorry.
Steve Pumper: No, that's great. I actually before this is going to be brought up I wanted to let
you know that probably was at least from the school district's point of view the biggest concern
of the site today, right now, is what will Lyman look like. Ultimately certainly but what will it
look like by the opening of school in the fall of 2009. We absolutely are committed to
contributing to the construction of the improved Lyman Boulevard. We certainly believe, as I
know your staff believes and I know the County shares the same opinion, and so does the City of
Chaska, that it'd be foolish for the school district to spend money putting in these temporary
improvements when those same dollars can be put towards the construction of a finished product
that all parties want. So certainly we would be amenable to have some sort of language in there
that we would contribute dollars towards that project. The difficult piece, you know to protect
the school district's interest would be that we do not want to have to contribute the cost of putting
in these temporary fixtures and turn lanes and signals, etc. and then have that same commitment
towards you know rebuilding Lyman. I believe, as I believe the City Manager has the same
feelings, this will get resolved and we will have construction on Lyman Boulevard so it is done
where I'm going to say the right way the first time and I think that's the best interest of all the
taxpayers, both in this city and in the district. The second item I'd like to address would be the
19
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
up lighting issue as well, and I'll tell you the same thing as I told the Planning Commission. This
is not a life or death issue to the school district. We certainly will go ahead and build the
building as you instruct us to build it regarding this issue. We believe however that it is going to
be a fixture in the community. It's going to be a gathering place, not only for the residents of
Chanhassen but certainly for the residents in District 112 as a whole. But I think we are
planning, and are committed to building a building that citizens of Chanhassen are going to be
proud of. It's going to be a community center and this is just one of those enhancements that will
kind of make the building stand out. There's really two variances as I see it that Kate may have
pointed out. One is, I believe the ordinance allows the United States flag to be up lit. And we
have 3 flag poles out front. One would be for the United States flag. One would be for the State
of Minnesota flag and one would be for the Chanhassen High School flag, which sounds like it's
going to be a Chanhassen storm flag. So those, the three poles are right next to each other and it
just makes sense to light all 3 of those, at least in our opinion that's what makes sense. The
second piece is the fly loft over the theater. And that is again a very tall structure. It's made out
of a material that will look like a sandstone. Very attractive and again it's just to light that, kind
of as a beacon in the community. The Planning Commission and staff have proposed that it only
be lit for events, and I think that's something that we could live with. Again it's just something
that would show people as they drive by at night, hey here's the school. Here's the site that we're
going to for the football game, for the basketball game, for a theater event, for a debate team,
whatever it may be. I don't think it's obtrusive at all. And again it's not certainly required. It's
not functional as far as what's going to happen for the building, so we'll go out as you see fit, as
that goes. We just think it would really help to accentuate the building as a whole. This building
is being constructed as a 50 plus year building. I mean we expect it to be here a long time and
we expect to have thousands upon thousands of people go through it. So we're just trying to
make it as nice a place as we can. With that being said, I have staff here as well, if you have any
technical questions I certainly can't answer, there's some people here who can certainly answer
those if you have questions regarding our application. And again, thanks for your time.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Pumper?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, maybe just the engineers talking about the retaining walls again.
Jay Pomeroy: Jay Pomeroy with Anderson-Johnson Associates. I'm a landscape architect. Can
you pose the question…
Councilman Peterson: ...where I talked about where on the site.
Jay Pomeroy: It can, and to be honest, that's a wall that is certainly very visible from the
neighborhood and as you drive westerly on Lyman. For that reason we're using the big block. I
don't know if we got into that a little bit but the larger sized block so it's got the structure and
stability look to it. We've moved it away from the curb edge a good distance so that there is a
comfort level as you're driving down that road. The only, the two concerns, maybe it's even just
one, is the impact to the wetland. There's a wetland finger that actually comes in from Bluff
Creek and actually turns way up in here. We will maintain that part of the finger and just
interrupt but there'll be an infill box culvert under there for, not only for flowage but also if
biology classes want to go down there and search around or pass under. There's that avenue, but
20
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
as we get further out it impacts more of the wetland and that would be my only concern, but it's
certainly something we can pump out.
Councilman Peterson: So reflect on my comment, again I'm not an expert on retaining walls.
I've become more knowledgeable than I wanted to over the last 20 years but it seems to me that
if you did terrace it, you'd have less sheet drain off of, if you had two moderate sized walls, one
draining into a vegetation area that would seep down to the ground from there, versus all of it
sheet draining and pushing off of the 20 some foot wall going right down into the wetlands.
Jay Pomeroy: Well we have to treat it no matter what. It's, the water, basically the high point is
at the road and most of the water flows down. There's a low point just about in here, if I recall.
This water's picked up and it goes via storm sewer into this basin. So all the water that falls on
the hard surface pavements has to be conveyed to a storm basin where it's filtered in kind of a
pre-treatment area for Carver County and MPS permit requirements, and it's cleaned before it's
discharged to the wetland. Any water that falls either on the wall or inside, well I should say
inside the wall is going to flow back and into that storm sewer. The water that falls outside the
wall obviously flows down and into the wetland. So we are cleaning whatever water falls on
our.
Councilman Peterson: So that being said, you're saying there is nothing going into the wetland,
then why would it not be logical that we could terrace it and have no affect? I'm just playing
devil's advocate here.
Jay Pomeroy: The only affect would be is that we're filling more wetlands. We're not putting
any more water, and the water that we would treat, perhaps if you put a rain garden into terraces,
would only be treating what falls into it.
Councilman Peterson: We're already mitigating some of that wetland now, so again I'm not
saying we…but we're mitigating some of it, because we're encroaching on it, so we could terrace
the wall and mitigate additional. Should we want to do that.
Jay Pomeroy: Yeah, but I don't know. The mitigation there wouldn't count. I don't know that
the mitigation would be more in storm water management than wetland mitigation. We would
have to, if we took more wetland here, that mitigation would have to go over here where we're
adding to the wetlands. Here where we're adding to the wetlands, or here. That wouldn't, if we
made application, that wouldn't be an approved mitigation area.
Councilman Peterson: Okay. Well again the only reason I'm saying that is that, that is a really
big wall. That's a really visual wall. Even though we're using bigger brick, it's still a brick wall
and I think that I'd be interested in looking at alternatives to whatever we can do, within reason,
without endangering you know the environment to do what's right for…
Jay Pomeroy: For me, and I certainly understand and I'm sensitive to that. For me it's aesthetics.
It's completely aesthetics and perhaps that's where you're going. To break up that height to just
make it feel, not so much less high but just structurally better or to break up the vision with
landscaping or what have it, there is something to be said for that. Now, keep in mind too that at
21
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
each end it tapers from zero and then it, the widest point, or the deepest point I should say, that's
where it's the highest is right at that point where it's 25-26 feet. And it slopes up.
Steve Pumper: …using some vegetation.
Jay Pomeroy: Oh yeah, there's going to be vegetation on the bottom that will soften it.
Councilman Litsey: What kind of vegetation are you planning on putting in there?
Jay Pomeroy: It's going to be some fairly fast growing plants. Aspen. Silver maple. You know
the native species. This whole site is really, our intent is to put in prairie grasses and native
vegetation, especially at the base between the Bluff Creek, the wetland and our design site, is to
keep it very natural All native plants. Fairly fast growing plants.
Councilman Litsey: At the base of those walls, that will break it up.
Jay Pomeroy: Yeah. Some.
Councilwoman Ernst: Can you tell me how far that wall is from the curb?
Jay Pomeroy: From the curb here over?
Councilwoman Ernst: Yep.
Jay Pomeroy: It's about 8 feet. So from here to.
Kate Aanenson: …the other thing was to put plantings on top growing down also.
Councilman Litsey: Like vines or something?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess point of clarification because I know Councilman Peterson's still
asking questions. Wall 5, which is in our plan, which I think is the one that runs the long way
that you were pointing to. Sir, the green one there. The staff report says the maximum height of
that is 10 feet. It was, I think is it Wall 2. It's the one right at Lyman there.
Jay Pomeroy: This one here?
Mayor Furlong: Just come in, yes sir. On the east side. That is, that's 22 feet.
Jay Pomeroy: Yeah, we've eliminated this wall. The inside wall. This wall though yes, is again.
Mayor Furlong: So Wall 1 is not existing anymore?
Jay Pomeroy: Correct. Yep, it's been eliminated.
22
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so how high is Wall 2 now? Is it the same?
Jay Pomeroy: Same height. Again it goes from zero at each end and it, if you've seen the site, it
falls fairly quickly, so again it's zero and zero, and falls fairly quickly down to that.
Mayor Furlong: 22 feet?
Jay Pomeroy: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: Because well, Councilman Peterson why don't you keep going with questions.
Councilman Peterson: No, I've said my piece about that wall. I think we should do something. I
don't know what it is but I think it's too big.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions for staff then? Or follow up questions on this.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well Kate the biggest part of the wall is where the sewer line is?
Kate Aanenson: Well, I agree with the Mayor. That part is 10 feet. The biggest wall…on that
side is probably 17, which is the one that's closer…
Mayor Furlong: And that's way up on the north side.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. That one was terraced.
Mayor Furlong: And so what is the break up of that?
Jay Pomeroy: The intent there, being that we're really adjacent to those active areas. This is the
shot put areas. The athletic events. The intent there is to, instead of a single wall height, to drop
3 feet. Put a 10 foot wide planter in there so that we have trees, evergreens, vines, what have
you, and then drop down the balance of the height, and again the reason for that is that as you're
throwing or as you're playing out in the field, you just don't feel like it's a deep drop. There is
some softening there. There is some feel of security there. This length again, I really don't at all,
but that's a drive and it's not an active or a passive walk. There certainly is, on this side, the
sidewalk on this side but you don't have the kids out there playing. There is guardrail on both
sides, and a fence on both sides. For security.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess the question is then along that drive, and that's where the buses will
be. That's the bus drive, correct?
Jay Pomeroy: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: You know again while it may not be from a softening from a use standpoint, it's
the visual aspect and that's what you said. This will be very visible for anybody driving west
bound on Lyman towards the site. Their view is going to be that wall. Now there are trees there
23
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
now. A number of those I'm sure are coming down to build the road and so, even that aspect
won't be there. There'll be nothing really to break that up between where the water is down on
the creek level and on up the 20 some odd feet to the top.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just clarify? ...this one's the 10 foot…
Mayor Furlong: And the trees in the sub-station, yes. That's my expectation.
Kate Aanenson: And we're hoping that architecturally, yeah. So the one that's going to be
visible at the highest is the one that…while this one's only 10 feet. So we're hoping that the
landscaping…and the next tallest.
Councilman Peterson: Right by the entrance then.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And that one's gone.
Mayor Furlong: On the east side of there.
Councilman Peterson: That's probably the most visible one there. Or two.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, as you're coming down Lyman, this is actually.
Mayor Furlong: But is that an interior wall?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, it's not interior. It's going the other way.
Mayor Furlong: So is the road there on the top of the wall or the bottom of the wall?
Jay Pomeroy: Top of the wall.
Mayor Furlong: Top of the wall, so that wall is facing in.
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: By that drive. It's facing in by the bus drive. Just kids park in there. That's
Wall 3. Wall 3 and Wall 4 are facing in towards the sub-station property?
Kate Aanenson: Internal.
Mayor Furlong: Internal.
Jay Pomeroy: That's incorrect. This wall is as high as the inside. Maybe it's a little bit…but
that's not 10 feet high.
Kate Aanenson: If you look at this one, you can see on the grading plan itself.
24
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Mayor Furlong: So that whole stretch along there is the 20-25 feet?
Jay Pomeroy: Again it tapers down so it's widest or highest right at that low spot there. You
know it may be 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and then it tapers back up.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions for staff, or for the applicant?
Councilwoman Ernst: Is this just a plain brick wall? Is there anything that's going to be on the
wall? I mean like.
Jay Pomeroy: The largest block will be stained. It's actually a, it's going to be complimentary to
the building. It's not gray. It's not tan. It's actually kind of a dual color. And it again will be
complimentary to the building. It will also have vines and the landscaping in front of it, but I'd
hate to do banding or something that makes it that much more apparent.
Councilman Litsey: So is it a stamped concrete stain then or is it?
Jay Pomeroy: Basically they're formed. You know the form is actually a little bit bigger than
this table, and that has kind of a rock face or kind of a, you know like a cliff, or you know a rock
face to it, and then it has a color included into the concrete and then it's also stained after the fact
and sealed.
Todd Gerhardt: So it's a similar product that they're using on 101 north of Highway 7. That
project, have you seen?
Jay Pomeroy: You know I'm not sure Todd. The most, the closest I can get, I just drove here
from Chaska. It's at the, I hesitate to say Home Depot because it's not the Home Depot wall, but
it's the sign, you know it's the sign that has Home Depot I think right at the corner of Pioneer and
41. It looks very rock like. It's very natural.
Councilman Litsey: It has a nice look. Actually on County Road 19 in the Shorewood-Tonka
Bay area there's a rather large, is that the size you're talking about?
Jay Pomeroy: Yeah.
Councilman Litsey: And it is fairly attractive.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for the applicant. Lighting. I don't know if that's you too or if
that's someone else.
Councilwoman Ernst: I did have some more questions on this.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilwoman Ernst: And maybe this is more of a question for Kate. Well actually it is more a
question for you. Have you checked with the neighboring, with the neighbors around in that area
25
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
to find out if that lighting would be offensive or has anyone checked with the neighbors in that
area to find if that might be offensive to them?
Steve Pumper: We only did through the illustrations that we had the night of the open house,
and then there were some neighbors here at the Planning Commission we talked about it and
their comments, which I think you have in your packet, were that they would not find that
offensive. Again most of the lighting would be seen from Lyman Boulevard. It's not, we're
lighting up the whole building. We're just lighting up the, you know the one, the front part of the
school. So no one has come forward to us to say that it'd be offensive, and there were residents
who were here that night.
Mayor Furlong: I guess a question I have, and maybe it's incorporated in there. Maybe it's not.
What are the, rather than just up lighting, flood lighting the wall, what are the options that are
available? Obviously down lighting is what is allowed in the ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, some of the people do soffit lighting. Put it in the overhang.
Mayor Furlong: Yep. And or, are there lights, can they be effectively shielded to, what are the
options rather than just going forward with blanket up lighting? So let's start with that. What are
the other options besides what you're proposing?
Steve Pumper: Can I answer one of those?
Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Answer any you want.
Steve Pumper: That's fine. The down lighting, which would be an option, it'd be a little bit
different effect but you know could be done. The issue is that for us is strictly a maintenance
issue. There's no way to change the bulbs if you have down lighting, at the top of the fly loft. I
mean you're talking about a structure that is Paul, do you know how many feet in the air? 30
feet? 30 feet higher than the roof and there's no access point to there so, it's strictly a
maintenance issue for us to have down lighting. If down lighting were to be the option, we
would not have lighting on it. We just would pull it. As far as the shielding goes, I believe the
lighting that we have proposed right now would be effectively shielded. It's very controlled.
Again it's just on the fly loft of the, above the theater.
Kate Aanenson: …submitted detailed plans that they would show us the point of projection, the
cut off and so we would review that with the building plans to make sure it…met that criteria…
Mayor Furlong: Is that doable? Is it effective to use directional shielding to light only the wall
and not have the spillage over either on the sides or above? Alright. And I guess the question
on, or the issue that came up through the Planning Commission was what activities around going
on. That's fairly vague to me and I guess the question I would have is how often at the current
high school district, how often are there evening activities?
Steve Pumper: The short answer is all the time.
26
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, that's what I thought. That's what I thought so it's not much.
Steve Pumper: And right now again, for those members who are familiar with Chaska High
School, this would be somewhat similar to having, for lack of a better word, the dome over the
commons there that is lit all the time. That kind of is a beacon at that school so to speak. While
it's not up lighting on the exterior of the building, it's certainly up lighting as far as if you're
flying over, you're going to see a lot of light coming out of that because it's just a glass dome
over the center of the building. That certainly is lit really every evening. We would again, we're
amenable to whatever you want us to do, as far as how often you want it lit. For what special
events you would qualify. If there is, if you believe it's a hindrance later on, you know we could
control it to a certain degree. Again it's not a make or break. We just think that you will like it
as much as we'll like it. I don't want to force your opinion on this.
Mayor Furlong: But you're willing to try to sway us. Is there anything besides this one wall then
Mr. Pumper? I thought it said the walls around the front.
Steve Pumper: No.
Kate Aanenson: The three flags.
Steve Pumper: The three flags and fly loft. I'm not sure Kate actually what you were showing.
Our intention is not to have up lighting on any other part of the building.
Mayor Furlong: What would you use for lighting there? Just down lighting.
Steve Pumper: Down lighting, right.
Kate Aanenson: We just showed the light fixtures that were…
Steve Pumper: Right. Those would just be yeah, regular spot light, down lighting. So this is the
only section are the three flag poles, one of them which you do allow by ordinance. And then
the fly loft.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, other questions for the applicant? Council members, did you
have anything else?
Councilwoman Ernst: No, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Anyone else? Okay. We did offer to take some public comment so at this point
I would invite any parties, Mrs. Lloyd, you had some comments or questions.
Deb Lloyd: You did a nice job covering some of the items that I was concerned about Bryan,
thank you for bringing up the traffic information. I know the community voted for the high
school. It's a foregone conclusion that it's going to be approved. It's a very challenging site to be
working with and so you have a lot of items to be concerned about. The traffic is a huge, huge
concern. 900 cars coming in a half an hour in the morning. In addition you have the students
27
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
that are going to Chaska High School. My kids have traveled those roads there. They've been
out of school now for 4 years but traffic accidents occur continually there. I don't know what the
present numbers but when I ran for council earlier this fall, in October, there were already 40
some accidents on the way to Chaska High School. If these roads are not improved concurrently
with this building we are asking for our youth to be hurt. And I really believe that is wrong. I
don't think it's wise to have a gentleman's agreement on this. I think this school and the county
and the city need to come to a common understanding when that road is going to be improved.
Who's going to pay for it because in the long run the kids are going to pay for it if it's not done
correctly. And budgets, you know what budgets are like. Do we have the money in our budget
plan for that? Does the County? Does the School Board? Probably not. Those are also coming
from our pockets so that is really, really a huge concern. With the demographics not measuring
up to the projections, do we need to rush it this week? Maybe you need to take time to step back
and to come to a written agreement with all parties. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. The City, County and School District have had numerous meetings
over many, many months with regards to Lyman and I know Mr. Gerhardt, you have been
involved in all of those meetings. That is something that is in progress. It's not something that
we just said oh, maybe we should upgrade this road. Give us a little bit of background on where
you are on that and some of the activities that have taken place and it involves the City of
Chanhassen, City of Chaska, Carver County and School District 112, so we've got four entities
that my understanding is they're working pretty well together, moving towards some
conclusions. But Mr. Gerhardt, perhaps you could comment a little more.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, as I stated earlier that right now we're at the point where we need to get a
Request for Proposal out to get engineers to come in and give us a true estimate of the cost to
upgrade that segment of roadway from basically Audubon north in Chanhassen, over to Galpin
and you know we've used some tentative numbers and it seemed as if everybody was kind of in
agreement with that. I need to bring it back to you, and I think I've got it scheduled here in the
next couple weeks to bring something back to the City Council so you know kind of where we're
heading on this. I was hoping that the county would have some truer numbers so I could come
back and not say whoops, we were wrong by 30% on road costs. You know I want to come back
with real numbers for you is why I haven't scheduled this earlier. But I think everybody's
working in good faith and I can appreciate that, the comments tonight. The reason we are
considering this now is to keep the school district's construction schedule, which is very tight, on
schedule and if we're going to hold this up to wait to see the numbers on the road, you know it's
not going to work and so, unfortunately we have to go on some good faith comments here and,
you know this is something that I've been working on for 6 years with the county and the City of
Chaska and we're finally making some headway on it so I'm very comfortable in bringing back
something that I think the City Council can support in the near future.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other public comments this evening? Okay, thank you.
Deb Lloyd: Just one side bar.
Mayor Furlong: If you can come up to the mic, just so we record it at home.
28
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Deb Lloyd: With the 2005 MUSA study, I thought, and you know this is cobwebs mind, but I
didn't think that we could have additional development until the roads were improved. Cobwebs
again, but I think that study, there was the implication of that. And so I don't know, is it
premature? I guess that's my question.
Todd Gerhardt: I can comment to that. What needs to be done as a part of the 2005 MUSA was
that you needed additional turn lanes in certain locations. It did not call for Lyman to be
upgraded to 4 lanes. Only at those intersections where there would be traffic signals would you
need 4 lanes, and I keep, you know a good example would be Pioneer where the current high
school is. It's a rural 2 lane road with right turn lanes and signals. Even Minnetonka's is even
narrower than that and so, you know Lyman ultimately needs to be 4 lanes down the road, but
right now based on the growth of 2005 MUSA, it would just need to have 4 lanes at the
intersection of Lyman and Audubon, and turn lanes into Audubon and onto new Powers. But it
would not need to be upgraded to 4 lanes right away.
Kate Aanenson: And that's just to be clear…so whether the road goes forward or not, they will
make the safety improvements as required in the Environmental Assessment document so it can
open safely, and that's the goal… The goal is not to duplicate…
Mayor Furlong: With the progress that's being made by the various government entities, if that
is successful in moving forward and we get a project that's feasible and approved by all the
entities, then the improvements that are listed here, those funds can be put towards making the
improvements permanent and doing a permanent improvement right from the start. That is
everybody's goal, right? I heard that tonight from the school district and certainly that's our goal
and I know the County and others involved would want the same thing. To your point, if for
some reason that falls off track, these improvements have to be made, but they would be made
quote, on a temporary basis and we all know how long temporary can be. But it would be made
such that it would meet the traffic demands for the site. So that the objective here is to upgrade
Lyman and make these improvements necessary for safe access to the site to do it once on a
permanent basis, so that's what everybody's intention is. Is to do.
Councilman Litsey: ...to those discussions but is the timing could be right to do it, the total
upgrade in time for the opening of the school?
Todd Gerhardt: It's going to be darn close.
Councilman Litsey: It's going to be tight.
Todd Gerhardt: It's going to be close but you know, the goal is to try to get it there in the fall of
2009, but we've had situations where the following year you finish up some other parts. You get
the key areas done, and then finish up some of the other areas later on. So will you have that
whole segment completed? Probably not but that's the task that Paul has at hand. To figure out
how to phase and stage the development of that road.
Councilman Litsey: Because my, I mean the concerns that have been articulated here but the
number one financially there's concerns but more importantly safety and I think there's no doubt
29
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
that it'd be safer if the whole upgrades went in at one time rather than piecemealing it. I mean
that's hardly a guess but, and then on the financial end of it, and I'm concerned about that so, I
still would like to see some, at a minimum, some language in there to tighten up the commitment
from the school district to financially supporting the total improvement.
Mayor Furlong: Well, and Paul correct me if I'm wrong. When we talk about some of the
improvements, the, if we upgrade Lyman, some of the improvements listed here are turn lanes.
Those turn lanes would be put in next to the permanent upgrade rather than next to the existing
pavement, so, and similar to most developments, if we had another development along Lyman
that was looking for expanded access or something, the developer would be required to put those
in, is that?
Paul Oehme: That's correct, at his cost.
Mayor Furlong: A city standard, at their cost. So I guess the way I read this, and I believe I was
right, was that these are improvements that need to be made on Lyman. Now if we can upgrade
Lyman and do these improvements at the same time, we might have some cost savings, some
efficiencies for doing it but bottom line, they're going to be paying for these types of
improvements.
Kate Aanenson: All the improvements are their responsibility to make their site work. That's
what they need to do…so those improvements are their responsibility.
Todd Gerhardt: And whatever their commitments you know dollar wise to put those in are
similar to the ones that would go with the prominent structure. There's not a huge cost difference
between the temporary and a permanent. That's the sad thing to say. You'd think it would be
cheaper to put temporary in, but the time you put those signals in, you've got to put loop
detectors in and you can't re-use those. Same thing with the signals. You've got to put up cedar
poles and put the temporary signals, you're at the same price basically as what the permanent
costs would be. So it's not like they're going to go spend more money on athletic fields and not
on the signals because they're going to have to put money towards the temporaries so, and
they've got to put that in their budget.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Just one real quick uncomplicated question. When the school opens,
is it going to be like maxed out with students or is it going to be a trickling?
Steve Pumper: We expect in 2009 to have roughly 1,500 students at Chanhassen High School
and it's going to be built for 2,000, so 75%.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? If not, let's bring it to discussion. Nobody else
from the public? No more public comments? Alright, thank you and thank you for all who
came to the Planning Commission meeting, to get your comments on the record there. We
appreciate that as well. Council members, comments, thoughts, discussion. Councilwoman
Ernst.
30
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Councilwoman Ernst: Mayor, are we charged with making this motion this evening on, is it four
different motions that we're supposed to be making or is it one?
Mayor Furlong: It's my understanding we have four different items before us, but it's the same
development. It's on, so there's a zoning change that's being requested. There is a site plan. The
alteration permit, or excuse me, wetland mitigation, and then a fourth one as well.
Councilman Peterson: It starts on 201.
Mayor Furlong: 201 of the electronic file. Page 23 of the staff report.
Councilwoman Ernst: I was confused because the recommendation on this was different than
what it's showing on here.
Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts and discussion on the overall project or issues we've discussed
this evening or that were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I'd be happy to start. I've already articulated my thoughts on
the retaining walls. I think that if we can creatively do anything and everything to mitigate the
size and the over powering nature of any of those walls, particularly the ones on the entrance
which I think are the ones that we focused on mostly tonight. You've already done some of that
on the northern part of the site and if we can do more of that, without substantially interfering
with the ecological nature of that area, you know I'd like to potentially increase the variance to
do that. Now I think that both from a visual, and I think from a safety standpoint, you know
when you get high retaining walls in an area where kids are driving, that kind of scares me so if I
can maybe save some car accidents and maybe go into the wetland a little bit, I'm willing to arm
wrestle over that. So that being said, the other I think contentious issue potentially is the
lighting. I have a different perspective on that, and I was part of the team that kind of put
together the ordinance on that and part of it really is, it's, we as a city have taken a stand about
visual light pollution and it really is light pollution that we originally had talked about is that any
time you put lights into the air, it is by some definition, by my definition pollution. It is, is it
nice? Does it look nice? Absolutely. But as a public sector entity, I wouldn't vote for it if the
City Hall wanted to do that because it truly is our ordinance. As another public entity, I think
we have to have a higher standard and now we're kind of moving away from that. ...let's maintain
a higher standard for ourselves and not do that for all the right reasons. You look around at the
towns on a cloudy night, you can see exactly where the towns are, and that's kind of what we're
talking about is we're trying to lessen that. All across America and if we can do it in a small way
here, it may seem insignificant but we have to start somewhere. And you started with the
ordinance and so I wouldn't support a variance for that for those reasons. Other than that, you
know obviously architecturally it's a wonderful building and it's a wonderful laid out site and a
very difficult site, just by looking at the number of retaining walls that's there. I looked at that
and went holy cow and you know, so that being said I think we've done an exceptional job of
integrating a lot of interesting site variations and architectural designs into a very, very difficult
site so, with those comments I pass it on.
31
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well I can't speak for everyone here but I have a feeling this is the
one and only time I'll be voting for a high school, and so I think it's kind of a special time for me
tonight knowing that. And I think it's really a positive night for our town. So much I think of a
person's high school years gravitate to where you came from. I mean they'll ask you where'd you
graduate from high school. I could say I graduated from Kennedy because I came from
Kennedy. Our kids in Chanhassen can't say that right now. They say other towns and so I think
it's wonderful that soon they'll be able to say Chanhassen, and really a high school can be the
heartbeat of a community. I think it brings people together and it creates a gathering site, a
public place for many different activities and so I think it's a positive thing. The Planning
Commission was concerned about the giving and taking with the Bluff Creek Overlay District
and that I think also where the school is, is a positive thing because I think maybe, and don't
quote me but that could possibly be the cheapest classroom they'll have in the whole school will
be that Bluff Creek. I think it will be an excellent opportunity for educating kids about the
environment and maintaining it and the environmental impacts that can happen, if things are not
properly taken care of so I think it's a positive factor that the high school is where it is. I think
they kind of took a round peg and trying to fit into a square hole and somehow with that site they
did it. I think it works, except for the retaining walls, that will probably do it I think with
retaining walls but, other than that with the lighting, I agree with Craig that as a council I think
we've tried to really be firm with up lighting with anything else that's come in. And you
mentioned Lifetime, I don't know if they were, they were not given up lighting either. So I think
we do have to maintain our standards with that and it is a beautiful building and it will be a
monumental building in our city, but I'm going to support staff recommendation to not have the
up lighting on the building. Other than that, I look forward to voting on it.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: I agree with Councilwoman Tjornhom in the fact that it's an exciting
event for us to be voting on this this evening. I'm struggling with the retaining wall a bit just
because it is such a big block of stone, and if there is a way that we could soften that, that would
be great. The up lighting on the other hand I'm taking a different stance on that. I think we have
an ordinance in place. However, I do think that based on what they've come back with today,
they've talked about putting the reflective lighting in, in an effort to try and compromise on that.
I feel that they've been good at trying to work with us on that. So I would actually support the up
lighting. And beyond that, I'm looking forward to voting on it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Litsey.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah, I share in the excitement. I think a lot of people worked really hard
to make this work and I commend everybody's efforts. This was a difficult site to work with and
it's really going to showcase the city of Chanhassen. Give us an identity beyond what we have
already. The pride aspect of it and those kind of things certainly too. I think we should try to do
what we can with the retaining walls, although I see what you can do with form lighters and stain
and I think it's fairly attractive and I think that it will look okay personally, but anything we
could do to mitigate the effect of that through plantings or whatever would be helpful and maybe
32
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
we could work towards that. You know this is truly a showcase for Chanhassen. I don't have a
problem deviating a little bit on the lighting. It's pretty modest deviation. Most of it has to do
with some extra flags, which is a good thing to light those. And the other has to do with a small
section just to give it some character and I don't see anyone objecting to it that lives in the area. I
think it will actually, like I said, showcase it better. I sound like a broken record on the next
thing but I really am concerned about the roads there. Ideally it would have been nice if the
roads could have been upgraded a little quicker to coincide with the school district's wanting to
put a, or the school district's wanting to put a school building there. I wasn't part of that so I'm
coming in here after the fact so I'm trying to do what I can to at least facilitate the fact that that
will happen, so I'd still like perhaps I should ask the city attorney. I'm not saying legally binding
language but something just to memorialize the fact that we want to, we are all committed
towards moving as quickly as possible towards completing those road improvements beyond just
what's being stated in here, and maybe just a simple sentence will do that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Couple questions on the lighting issue, and on the retaining
walls. What of the, well let me ask council this question. There were two issues with regard to
lighting. One is the flags. Our ordinance allows the American flag, and they're going to have
two other flags there. Is there a sense that allowing the variance on the up lighting for the two
additional flag poles is okay or is not okay?
Councilman Peterson: My point was for the building.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So you are okay with the flag poles? With the additional flag poles?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: It's not my issue at all.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. So the issue is basically the wall. Or the, I'm sorry.
Steve Pumper: Fly loft.
Councilwoman Ernst: What'd he say?
Steve Pumper: Fly loft.
Mayor Furlong: Fly loft.
Kate Aanenson: Can you point to that Steve…
Mayor Furlong: Do you have a picture of the sight line?
Todd Gerhardt: The screen for the movies in the theater area. It's the high bay area.
Mayor Furlong: Do you have an elevation that we can see that? Do you have an elevation or
something that shows that?
Steve Pumper: There was, it was on your web site.
33
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Todd Gerhardt: It's this portion of the building that doesn't really lay it out well but this is the fly
loft.
Mayor Furlong: Can you zoom in on that?
Todd Gerhardt: There it is.
Steve Pumper: It's right here. So this sandstone color right there. So you've got the 3 flags.
Again this wall right here.
Mayor Furlong: And what other lighting on the outside of the building is going to occur? You
said there's going to be down lighting.
Steve Pumper: Yeah you'll see, and here's the cafeteria so you'll see, and this is all glass, so
you'll see lighting. Through tiered lighting coming out…and all the rest of the lighting will be
down lighting. Here again you would have the lights would be on the face of the wall and they'd
be angled upwards. Again what I was telling you before, if you had a similar effect of having the
light coming from down, it's just again being able to get up to that point to actually access the
bulbs.
Mayor Furlong: There's no access ladder available to do that?
Councilman Peterson: But you're lighting a straight, 100% flat wall.
Mayor Furlong: There's no façade that comes out to cut it off?
Steve Pumper: It's a textured wall but I mean.
Todd Gerhardt: You've got a sample of the material that.
Kate Aanenson: …cut off so.
Mayor Furlong: And how effective can you do that? How effectively?
Kate Aanenson: Well there's two. One for the light fixture itself…stops at the top of the roof
line.
Todd Gerhardt: Or you point the light down 2 or 3 feet from the top of the wall.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well I guess, backing up here a little bit. There's comments made
tonight about how, this is a long time coming. I think Mr. Pumper made that comment and I
agree, it is a long time coming. I'm glad we're here where we are. There have been a number of
residents over the years that have been waiting for last fall's referendum to be asked and for the
school to be named Chanhassen High School, which has taken place, and now we're at this stage.
I think it is important that we keep the process moving forward. I think this is one of those cases,
34
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
and especially with regards to Lyman where we can't wait til all the lights are green before we
back out of the driveway, and we've been backing out of the driveway and moving forward and I
think that's one that we're going to have to work on. Fortunately I think the parties are working
together well and we'll be able to do that and we can talk a little bit more I guess about that if we
need to but overall, there have been a lot of people involved, as Councilman Litsey has said. A
number of residents and staff and school board and the city and over the years, people that we
aren't even aware of that were involved that contributed in some way to bringing forward this
Chanhassen High School tonight, and it will be a very nice addition. I'm glad with how I've seen
the school district and the city staff work together to get us here and this has been really the
culmination of commitments made and commitments kept over the years and that's great for all
of us to see. Unfortunately with all these cases we get into some details that seem to muck it up
a little bit when you're trying to keep it a bigger picture and let's not lose sight of the bigger
picture here, but we've got a couple details we do have to address. With regard to the lighting,
I'm very torn on this one, as is the rest of the council, which is clear. My concern is, as much as
try to shield and such, which would be I guess a preference, in the end what we're doing is we're
lighting a wall and while it will provide some architectural appearance, you know even the
restriction that it be done during school activities, it's effectively we're doing it all the time. So
I'm concerned that, with regard to doing that and what, whether or not that can be done as
effectively as we'd want it to be done, without the overflow on the sides. I guess I'm not
comfortable there yet and I don't know how to get comfortable here and I don't know that
lighting up a wall or not lighting up the wall with up light is worth the entire site plan, and I
know it's not an issue for the school district but it's an architectural feature they were looking at.
Clearly I'm comfortable with lighting the flags and all three flag poles. I think that's a reasonable
request. The retaining walls, I'm very much agree with Councilman Peterson on the retaining
walls, especially the ones along that bus driveway. The road coming off of Lyman, where
Audubon comes north, at that intersection. I think we need to look to break those walls up
somehow and realize there might be some encroachment into the wetland but I think from a
visual standpoint, as much as we talk about visual appearance of the building, that's going to be
a, we've got a 22, or 20 to 25 foot wall, starting at 0 and going up and down along there, I think
breaking it up. And the wall I always think about is the wall by the parking lot over at St.
Hubert's Church. That's a very high wall. I'm not sure what the height is, but it's terraced twice
and just by doing that, planting some trees halfway and allowing some bushes to be there, you
drive in there and you don't have a sense of there's a huge wall there, but it's there and I think the
terracing helps break that up. So I don't know how we do that from a condition standpoint. I
would be in favor of making sure that we do something there, whether it's a condition or whether
that's something, and I'm sure staff understands, sorry, the council, we can get something done
there. Whether it's to work with staff from, and I'm open to other ideas Councilman Peterson or
others.
Kate Aanenson: For clarification… There is, I heard you say the…
Mayor Furlong: Between the curb and the top of the wall. Can we use some of that?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think we can. My concern is that is there's additional wetland impact…
35
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Roger Knutson: Obviously if there's additional wetland impact, you might have to come back
with additional wetland mitigation. Go through that process, and I guess that wouldn't hold
things up very much, considering how long this project's going to take to build out so.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But will that incur extra costs?
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I mean we're talking about public dollars here so it's not.
Kate Aanenson: I think…
Mayor Furlong: I want to see what the options are I guess along that walk.
Kate Aanenson: If there's some room up on top…
Mayor Furlong: And I understand there are some restrictions on what options there might be.
Kate Aanenson: Such as the location of the sewer line, but we can look at all those depending
on…we'll have to come back with that.
Roger Knutson: Maybe the best thing you can do under the circumstances is direct council,
excuse me, direct staff to look at all reasonable possibilities of terracing the retaining walls or
reducing them in height. I guess you can't reduce them in height. Through terracing or breaking
up the impact of them.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I'm comfortable with that too as long as like it's not going to cost
huge amounts of money. I think that like I said, we are spending our citizen's money on a
building and if it's you know better to lessen the impact on the environment and keep the
retaining wall and keep a budget, or otherwise going into wetland mitigations and costing more
financially, I think we should also look at that and not just what it looks like.
Roger Knutson: How about if I put in the word reasonable?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And that's okay. Reasonable and financial are okay.
Mayor Furlong: Would that be a condition then or just.
Roger Knutson: Staff direction I think that would be.
Mayor Furlong: Staff direction to work with staff on that. Okay. Alright. And I think that's
what we need to do. I don't think we know what all the options are there yet and so I think
working with staff to look at reasonable options I think makes sense. On the, I guess getting
back to the up lighting, our last issue there, unless other people have ideas there, if it's, my sense
would be to follow the ordinance, unless we can gain some comfort, some options that could
come back which would give us solid comfort in terms of mitigating the reason that the
36
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
ordinance is in place. Mitigating or eliminating the reason the ordinance is in place which is,
that there be no, if there's a lighting scheme that could be utilized that would have the same
illumination effects as down lighting, because I think that to Councilman Peterson's point, talked
about why we have that ordinance in place. And that's to reduce, even down lighting is going to
have some reflective lighting off the building. That's the whole purpose of it so is there a
lighting scheme that allows the equivalent from an illumination standpoint.
Kate Aanenson: But I guess the onus would again be back to the applicant to submit it to staff, a
drawing that we could share with you that we felt met the requirement.
Councilman Litsey: Couldn't we do the same thing we're doing with the retaining wall?
Kate Aanenson: Right. I just, just for again point of clarification…but they need to go back
through the process and ask for a variance separately and go back to the Planning Commission. I
think the Planning Commission already told them that we don't want to do that process. We
want to keep it open ended…that's why I'm asking for a point of clarification just to say.
Mayor Furlong: How we do that.
Kate Aanenson: Exactly.
Mayor Furlong: Yes. No, I don't want to have to go through another variance request.
Roger Knutson: As I understand it, you're, not to put words in your mouth.
Mayor Furlong: Please do.
Roger Knutson: Maybe that's what I was going to do but I didn't feel right about it. I was trying
to you know. You're denying the variance unless the applicant can come back and demonstrate
to the City Council that the light will be cut off on the sides and on the top in such a way as not
to cause light pollution. Is that about it?
Mayor Furlong: That's approximately it, yes. And I don't know how to better describe than he
just did but I think that's the point. If the ordinance is there to prevent the light pollution, is there
a mechanism of lighting that wall so that it meets their maintenance requirements because of the
physical structure of the building? But I do not want this to go back through another request. I
mean can we keep this, how do we do this?
Roger Knutson: You can flip it over. The easiest thing to do to make it clean, if you're
comfortable with this, let's say approve the variance, however.
Mayor Furlong: Subject to.
Roger Knutson: Yeah. However the lights must not pollute upward, above the top of the fly
wall or to the side of the fly wall. It must go straight up the fly wall and be contained within.
37
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Kate Aanenson: And more specifically submit a plan demonstrating that.
Roger Knutson: Before it spills, and if you can do that, it's approved.
Todd Gerhardt: It's something to stop 2 to 3 feet to the top of the fly loft.
Councilwoman Ernst: So could we do that with the retaining wall as well? Or does that need to
come back?
Mayor Furlong: Well I think the retaining wall, they'll work with staff to look at all reasonable
options there and come back.
Roger Knutson: I think the retaining wall is much more difficult because we could, it's easy to
say what you find objectionable to lighting. It's hard to design the retaining walls.
Mayor Furlong: I guess to Councilman Peterson, Councilwoman Tjornhom, is that going to, if
they can demonstrate a lighting scheme to staff and if we want to make it subject to council
approval that it is done such that there is no spillage over or it doesn't create the light pollution
that the ordinance is meant to restrict, would that be okay going forward with the language that
Mr. Knutson just recommended?
Councilman Peterson: Well my response to that question is probably, the answer is it'd be
difficult because I think what you're.
Mayor Furlong: I don't know if it's possible.
Councilman Peterson: …they'd have to bring the light you know 30 or 40 feet away from the
wall and then you know shine at it to be assured that you haven't gone over the sides so you're
going to kind of light the middle of the wall.
Mayor Furlong: And I don't know if that's something they want to do or not but again, I don't
know what the answer is. There's smarter people with lighting than I am on that.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah and we've talked about this before Kate. If we can show that the
dispersal of the light has been mitigated with the lumens, etc, etc, I mean it will substantially, be
a substantially different look because you're, then you're not up lighting. You're front lighting it
in a real soft way.
Kate Aanenson: Right, I agree it's not just how it shines on there. It's the lumens that you're
looking at when, distance away and…intensity so it's going to take a couple different issues to
address that so…
Councilman Peterson: Again my goal isn't to make a big deal out of this. It's just, we have an
ordinance in there for all the right reasons and I just don't think we should make an exception for
another public entity when we're, unless we're trying to re-think our ordinance. The answer to
38
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
your question, if they can creatively bring a solution that will meet the intent of the ordinance,
then knock yourself out.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Have you been keeping track of these so we know where to put them in?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. I think that's most clear…that's pretty clear.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay. So any other comments or discussion on this? Now we've
hammered out those details. Let's get back to the goal at hand here which is considering
approval of the new high school in Chanhassen. We have four motions beginning on page 23 of
the staff report. Page 201 of the electronic file. Would somebody like to make a motion?
Councilman Litsey: Can I just before we do that, is there some language that you came up with
that would?
Todd Gerhardt: Sure. If you want to add the language where the school district would
participate in the Lyman Boulevard upgrade, I've got some language on that. I call it 5(a). In
addition the School District shall participate in the cost of the upgrading of Lyman Boulevard on
a fair or equitable basis based upon trip generation highlighted in the traffic impact study.
Mayor Furlong: Please.
Steve Pumper: That's creative Todd. I prefer it be more based on comparable costs associated
with what's in the site proposal right now.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay.
Steve Pumper: The only reason I clarify that is because I don't, I truly don't know what we mean
by saying based on trip generation. You know what that would…for us.
Todd Gerhardt: The only reason I put that in there was the trip generation study showed the need
for the right turn lanes and the traffic signals. So you know we're using the information that was
provided by your engineers. Not asking for you to pay for trails, curb, gutter or any of that, so.
Councilman Litsey: And again this is just good faith. I don't know that it's legally binding.
Councilman Peterson: Well yeah, that's to my point. If it's not binding anyway, what we're
trying to do is get a message across and I think Bryan, I think you got the message across.
Councilman Litsey: But then what's the harm of putting it in there?
Councilman Peterson: Well you can't enforce it so I mean.
Councilman Litsey: There's a lot of things that you can't necessarily enforce but it shows good
faith and when people go back to look at what the intent of it was, it's in the document and it's
easy to reference.
39
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Councilman Peterson: Yeah we try not to, at least I try not to put items in conditions that we
can't enforce.
Councilman Litsey: Well I would like something stronger than that but I'm willing to support
something like this to at least show good faith… We're putting the cart before the horse
somewhat in putting the school in before we have adequate roadways. I also understand that the
school is on a time line. We need to get it in there. I support the project overall. I'm glad it's
going in but I'm very concerned about cost impact to the City and what this might do down the
road so I just would like some kind of a good faith.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And Todd, we are going to have a meeting about this regarding
Lyman and all the parties, their input in trying to reach some sort of agreement, correct at
another later date?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: This is a huge issue.
Todd Gerhardt: If Steve has a problem with based upon trip generation, let's just take that out
and highlight it in the traffic impact. Take that out. Just say in addition the school district shall
participate in the cost of upgrading Lyman Boulevard on a fair and equitable basis, like I said
earlier.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I think just for clarification. As we're looking at the staff report
with regard to the traffic to Councilman Litsey, condition number 5, and correct me if I'm wrong,
lays out the conditions that are necessary because of the trips being generated by this site, to
create safe roadways.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Now an upgrade of Lyman would be a better roadway but it's not, by going
forward with this, with these conditions, we're creating a safe roadway. So saying it was unsafe,
I don't know that that's.
Councilman Litsey: Well I never said it was unsafe. I just said that arguably it's safer if you do
the total upgrade. Than piecemealing. That's pretty self evident but.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Litsey: I just want something that you know we understand this is important. We
need to move this along and I don't think it does any harm and I think it's a good way to show
good faith on the part of the school district, and not binding them to anything.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, with that would somebody like to take a shot at the motion?
40
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Councilwoman Tjornhom: The first one?
Mayor Furlong: Why don't we start with the first one.
Kate Aanenson: You can do all of them.
Roger Knutson: You can combine all four in one motion.
Mayor Furlong: I just want to make sure that we incorporate the modifications to any conditions
so, do you want to start with A, Councilwoman Tjornhom?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I make a recommendation that the City Council adopt the following,
oops. I'm sorry, the Chanhassen City Council approves the Rezoning of the Chanhassen High
School site from Agricultural Estate District (A2) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) or
Office Industrial District (OI).
Mayor Furlong: Okay. You want to keep going?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yep. And then B. We're on B now, is that right?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: The Chanhassen City Council approves the Conditional Use Permit
for development within the Bluff Creek corridor with a variance to locate the south access drive
within the Bluff Creek primary zone in conformance with the grading plans prepared by
Anderson-Johnson Associates dated 2-02-07, subject to the following conditions 1 through 10.
Mayor Furlong: Yep, 1 through 2.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: 2? Oh I'm sorry. 10's the next one?
Mayor Furlong: I think so.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Yep, 1 through 2 on B.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay, 1 through 2. I'm sorry.
Mayor Furlong: That's okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: The Chanhassen City Council approves the Site Plan with Variance
for a three story building and I don't know, do I want to put up lighting in there?
Roger Knutson: Yes. And then you go onto the conditions. You're approving it subject to I
believe.
41
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Subject to conditions and for a high school campus including an
approximately 406,000 square foot building, athletic fields, concession buildings, stadium,
storage, maintenance buildings and parking lots, plans prepared by Anderson-Johnson Associates
dated 2-02-07, subject to the following conditions, and that's 1 through 10.
Councilman Peterson: With the inclusion of 11?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: With the inclusion of 11. Which still would be up lighting?
Mayor Furlong: And how do you want 11 to read?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: How should it read?
Councilman Peterson: Kate did you?
Mayor Furlong: Did you write that down?
Kate Aanenson: …say the building façade up lights shall be prohibited contingent upon meeting
the intent of the lighting ordinance.
Roger Knutson: Meeting the intent of it.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, including the intent of the lighting, ordinance which is…
Councilman Litsey: Are we also adding 5(a) or not?
Mayor Furlong: Yep, just a minute. I want to get 3 here first. So 3 is being proposed to be
modified to say the building façade flood lights shall be allowed only.
Kate Aanenson: Subject to meeting the intent of our lighting ordinance regarding spill off. I
think that's the most clear.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And to who's discretion? Staff's or council's? To staff's discretion? Or
staff's approval. Okay. Alright. So that's 3.
Todd Gerhardt: Kate that was to include up, just during school events?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. …which is all the time.
Mayor Furlong: I think, we're still in the middle of the motion here so I mean, the first
suggestion was to meeting the ordinance intent. Subject to approval of staff. And then you want
to put the period there? And then take off all that events, yep. Okay. Okay. So that's 3. Then
there was a question on 5(a). Did you want?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Todd, what do you think our language should be for that?
42
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Todd Gerhardt: I don't think it hurts if you take out that based upon trip generation highlighted
in the traffic impact.
Mayor Furlong: So just read what you have.
Todd Gerhardt: 5(a). In addition the School District shall participate in the cost of the upgrading
of Lyman Boulevard on a fair and equitable basis.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Fair enough?
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: I have that written down Kate.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: That's all written down and documented? Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. And then you said 11?
Councilman Peterson: 11 is no longer.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: 11 is no longer.
Mayor Furlong: 11 was 3?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it's conditions 1 through 10, 3 modified and 5(a) added.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then D.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Councilwoman Ernst will do it.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Councilwoman Ernst can do that.
Mayor Furlong: Oh well.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You want me to keep going?
Mayor Furlong: Yeah. You're still in the middle of the road…
Councilman Peterson: I would like to go home tonight.
43
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
Councilwoman Tjornhom: The Chanhassen City Council, I can read actually really fast. The
Chanhassen City Council approves the Wetland Alteration Permit for the grading and filling of
wetlands on the site of the Chanhassen High School, plans prepared by Pinnacle Engineering
dated February 9, 2007, subject to the following conditions 1 through 5.
Mayor Furlong: Based upon the findings of fact in the staff report?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Of course. Based upon the findings of fact.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: Point of clarification?
Mayor Furlong: Yes. We're still making a motion so.
Kate Aanenson: We haven't added one on the retaining walls.
Mayor Furlong: Is that 11, back to the site plan?
Councilman Peterson: There you go.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So 11, back on the site plan which was Motion C. Did you have
suggested language there? We might be done before school opens.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is that one going to the Wetland Alteration Permit?
Mayor Furlong: No. No, this is site plan. Because it's a site plan issue I believe.
Kate Aanenson: …alternative designs to reduce the impact of the retaining walls.
Mayor Furlong: It was yeah, to look at reasonable possibilities.
Kate Aanenson: Reasonable alternatives.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Retaining walls to reduce impact…
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And that would come back to staff also?
Kate Aanenson: We'll share it with you…
Mayor Furlong: Yeah. I think it's clear what the intention of the council was trying to achieve
there so those would be the types of alternatives we'd be looking for, so that was number 11
44
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
under C. So we've got Motions A, B, and C with the conditions under C being modified on 3,
5(a) and 11 being added. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Ernst: Second. Okay, but here's my question.
Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Councilwoman
Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Do we have to make, do we have to second each, should we be seconding,
oh we don't have to?
Mayor Furlong: We're doing it all as a single motion. So unless there's a desire to break it up or
modify it, but they're all the same.
Councilman Peterson: The only reason why you would break it up normally is if you'd want to
vote for one and not vote for another one.
Councilwoman Ernst: Oh, okay.
Mayor Furlong: So with that, is there any discussion or other questions? To clarify council's
understanding of what we're doing. Any discussion? If not, the motion's been made and
seconded.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council
approvesthe Rezoning of the Chanhassen High School site from Agricultural Estate
District, A2, and Planned Unit Development, PUD, to Office and Institutional District, OI. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council
approves the Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor with a
Variance to locate the south access drive within the Bluff Creek primary zone, in
conformance with the grading plans prepared by Anderson Johnson Associates, Inc., dated
02-02-07, subject to the following conditions:
1.The construction activities associated with the proposed project shall not conflict with the
easement granted to MnDOT for its wetland mitigation project.
2.To mitigate for the impacts to the primary corridor, the applicant shall submit a plan for the
restoration of areas adjacent to the Bluff Creek Corridor (including the drainageway along
the north side of the substation and the area east of the bus/event entrance) with species
consistent with the City’s Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council
approvesthe Site Plan with Variance for a three-story building and up lighting for a High
45
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
School campus including an approximately 406,000 square-foot building, athletic fields,
concession building, stadium, storage/maintenance buildings and parking lots, plans prepared
by Anderson Johnson Associates, Inc., dated 02-02-07, subject to the following conditions:
1.The developer shall add benches and tables to take advantage of the gathering areas, plazas
and scenic overlooks. Bicycle parking pads and storage racks shall be provided on site.
2.The developer shall include angled visitor parking in the drop-off access west of the building
entrance.
3.The building façade flood lights shall be permitted contingent upon meeting the intent of the
lighting ordinance and subject to city review and approval.
4.Pedestrian ramps shall be provided at all curbs where the sidewalks or trails connect.
5.The following mitigation measures shall be implemented by opening day of the school:
Construct a traffic signal at the Lyman Boulevard/Lake Hazeltine Drive intersection.
?
Modify the existing signal at the Lyman Boulevard/Audubon Road South intersection for
?
the addition of a north leg to the intersection.
Construct the following turn lanes:
?
Approach Left Turn Lane Right Turn Lane
Southbound Lyman Boulevard at North Bypass lane
School Access
Northbound Lyman Boulevard at North 200 feet
School Access
Westbound North School Access at Through lane becomes 300 feet
Lyman Boulevard turn lane
Southbound Lyman Boulevard at Lake 200 feet
Hazeltine Drive
Northbound Lyman Boulevard at Lake 200 feet
Hazeltine Drive
Eastbound Lake Hazeltine Drive at 100 feet
Lyman Boulevard
Westbound Lake Hazeltine Drive at 300 feet Build
Lyman Boulevard through/right
Eastbound Lyman Boulevard at Audubon 200 feet
Road South
Westbound Lyman Boulevard at 200 feet
Audubon Road South
Northbound Audubon Road South at Build to add through
Lyman Boulevard lane
Southbound Audubon Road South at 200 feet Build
Lyman Boulevard through/right
46
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
a. In addition the School District shall participate in the cost of the upgrading of Lyman
Boulevard on a fair and equitable basis.
6.Building Official Conditions:
a.The buildings must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems.
b.The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
c.Building permits are required for all structures (including, but not limited to, storage
buildings, concession stands, bleachers, retaining walls).
d.Retaining wall plans must be prepared and signed by a structural engineer licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
7.Fire Marshal Conditions:
a.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
b.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
c.Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load
of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
d.Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
e.No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
f.Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4.
8.Forester Conditions:
a.Increase plantings for parking lot area in order to meet ordinance requirement of 156
trees.
47
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
b.Replace Black Hills spruce seedlings with white spruce.
c.Existing trees to be preserved shall be protected. Fencing shall be installed around trees
prior to grading.
d.Understory seedlings shall be located among overstory deciduous trees.
e.The applicant shall increase the quantity of seedlings planted in each grouping.
f.All deciduous seedlings shall be protected by tree tubes. Tubes shall be monitored and
removed at the appropriate time. All tubes shall be fitted with protective bird netting.
g.All ash trees shall be replaced by an alternative species.
h.The applicant shall meet minimum requirements for buffer yard plantings along the east
property line. Native shrubs and vines shall be incorporated into the landscape in
addition to trees.
i.The columnar Norway maple shall be replaced with a different columnar tree such as
Armstrong red maple, Autumn Spire red maple or even an ornamental species.
9.Engineer Conditions:
a.The applicant must obtain permits from Carver County to construct the accesses to
Lyman Boulevard.
b.ISD 112 must obtain the necessary easement from the City of Chaska to construct the
access through the substation property.
c.Spot elevations must be shown between the wetland/wetland mitigation and Lyman
Boulevard to ensure that the road is not flooded during the 100-year event.
d.Additional ponding is required so that runoff from the entire future width of Lyman
Boulevard will be treated in the ponds.
e.Hydrology to the wetland/wetland mitigation area north of the Lake Hazeltine access
point must be maintained.
f.The outlet for Storm Basin 2 should be relocated to prevent short circuiting.
g.The development team should reexamine the proposed grades within the infield of
softball field 1 to eliminate the low area between second base and the pitcher’s mound.
h.Grading operations on adjacent properties must be approved by the property owner.
48
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
i.Grading within the overhead electric and gas easement near the eastern access point must
be approved by the appropriate private utilities.
j.Identify all emergency overflow locations and elevations on the final grading plan.
k.The final grading plan must show the linework for the storm sewer.
l.Pond, drainage and utility easements are required over the ponds and wetlands.
m.The developer must adjust the sanitary sewer manhole elevations according to City
standard detail plates.
n.The trunk sanitary sewer line must be televised before and after construction to determine
if the high school construction has damaged the pipe. If the City televises this sanitary
sewer before the high school construction mobilized, the developer will only be required
to televise the line after construction is complete.
o.The school district will be reimbursed $166,424.00 which is the cost difference between
the 18-inch trunk and 10-inch lateral watermain.
p.Trunk water fees must be paid with the building permit based on the City Water Access
Charge in effect at the time the building permit is issued.
q.The hydrant locations along Lyman Boulevard must be adjusted so that the hydrants do
not lie within the high water level of the adjacent ponds.
r.Based on the proposed utility plan, an irrigation meter is required.
s.The utility plan must show the existing trunk sanitary sewer, existing overhead utilities
and existing gas pipelines.
t.Mylar and digital as-builts for the pond grading and utilities must be submitted in Carver
County coordinates.
10.Water Resources Coordinator Conditions:
a.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner compliant with the project’s Wetland
Alteration Permit, Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
(MR 8420).
b.The project shall comply with the conditions of its Conditional Use Permit for
Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
c.The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) including all information required
by the NPDES Construction Site Permit shall be located at the job trailer.
49
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
d.Stable emergency overflows shall be provided for the proposed ponds on site. The
emergency overflows shall be clearly labeled on the plan and a detail is needed. The
emergency overflows can be stabilized with a turf re-enforcement mat or fabric and
riprap.
e.The plan shall include detailed specifications for temporary stabilization of the site. The
timing of stabilization will vary depending upon slope and if it is a concentrated flow
area. The rate of mulch application shall also be included on the plans (2 tons per acre,
disc anchored).
f.All riprap/fabric at the flared end section shall be installed within 24 hours of flared end
section installation.
g.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a
curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other
natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
h.Silt fence that is not placed on the contour shall have J-Hooks or rock every 50 to 75 feet.
i.Temporary sediment basins shall be constructed prior to disturbing upslope areas. The
areas of temporary sediment basins shall be labeled on the plan. A temporary and/or
permanent sediment pond shall be constructed at the locations of the outlets for Flared
End Sections (FES) 7 and 8. This shall be installed prior to grading and then used as a
temporary sediment pond prior to discharging the runoff into the wetland. If it is used as
a temporary pond, it should stay in place until all turf is established. Temporary outlet
structures (e.g., a perforated riser and rock cone) shall be provided for the ponds; details
should be provided.
j.Contractors and their subcontractors shall receive approval of proposed dewatering
methods from the City’s project inspector or erosion and sediment control inspector prior
to conducting any and all dewatering on-site.
k.Wimco inlet controls or similar shall be used to protect all storm sewer inlets.
l.The plans shall be revised to include Chanhassen’s standard details for erosion and
sediment control (i.e., Details 3102, 3104, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5300, 5301, 5302, 5302A).
50
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
m.The plans shall be revised to include a concrete washout area.
n.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as-needed.
o.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(i.e., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval.
11. The applicant and city staff shall look at reasonable alternative designs to reduce the
impact of the retaining walls.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council
approvesthe Wetland Alteration Permit for the grading and filling of wetlands on the site
of the Chanhassen High School, plans prepared by Pinnacle Engineering, dated February
9, 2007, subject to the following conditions:
1.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. All wetlands and wetland buffer areas shall be
protected by silt fence during grading. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and
staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland
buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay
the City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the
wetland buffer edge. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans.
2.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with Chanhassen City Code and the
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
3.The applicant shall provide additional information as to how the vegetative communities and
hydrology for Wetlands C and D will be re-established.
4.A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement
monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native species,
particularly purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans shall show fixed photo
monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant shall provide proof of
recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland.
5.The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation
(including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland
are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of
final approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including
grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of
credit.”
51
City Council Meeting - March 26, 2007
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you everyone. Big evening for the City of Chanhassen and
School District 112 so congratulations. Thank you very much.
APPOINTMENTS TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
Mayor Furlong: The City Council has authorized four standing commissions so whereby
residents are appointed to assist the council on various matters throughout the year. The
commissions include the Planning Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, Senior
Commission and Environmental Commission. Appointments to these 7 member commissions
are for 3 year terms, beginning in April each year and are staggered as such that 2 or 3 positions
expire each year. Appointments for mid-term vacancies can occur at any time and such
th
appointments would be for the unexpired portion of that vacancy's term. Between March 12
and this evening the City Council interviewed 8 candidates for 3 open positions on the Planning
Commission. City Council is indeed grateful to all those who applied, as we recognize that each
applicant is willingly offering a substantial commitment of their time and energy for the benefit
of us all. Unfortunately the number of high quality, qualified candidates again exceeded the
number of available positions. As such we are not able to appoint some applicants of whom we
are confident would have been able to serve well. After full consideration of each applicant's
background and skills, the current and anticipated issues facing the Planning Commission and
the City Council, it is the City Council's decision to appoint Kevin Dillon, Dan Keefe and Jerry
McDonald to the Planning Commission with each term to expire on March 31, 2010. I would
hereby move these 3 nominations and ask the council for a second.
Councilwoman Ernst: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any discussion on those nominations? Hearing none, we'll
proceed with the vote.
Mayor Furlong moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to appoint Kevin Dillon, Dan Keefe
and Jerry McDonald to the Planning Commission with each term to expire on March 31,
2010. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Again to all the applicants, all those who submitted applications to the Planning
Commission but were not appointed this time, we thank you for your interest and your
commitment to making Chanhassen a better place for all of us to live. We're very grateful for
your willingness to serve and encourage you to consider applying again in the near future.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Furlong: One item that I will bring up, the Chanhassen Rotary Club is again this year for
the third in a row in the process of selecting the winner of it's 2007 Distinguished Service
Award. Those ballots with the 3 finalists are going out to various organizations this week. As in
the past, the City Council receives one vote and the method that we've used that seems to work
well is, Mr. Gerhardt will distribute the finalist summary resume to each of us and then we will
52